£10,000 a week in parking fines.... but it's still not enough, says council11 August 2008
By Michael Peel
Halifax Courier
DRIVERS have forked out more than £10,000 a week to Calderdale Council in parking fines.
The figures for the council's first full year in charge of parking show it netted £556,000 in fines for 2007/8 – and a total of £2.8 million in income and fines.
But deputy council leader Stephen Baines said the authority should be making even more money from parking fines.
Mr Baines (Con, Northowram and Shelf) said: "We are unable to recruit all the officers we need to enforce regulations, which means we are not raising all the income we should from fines."
He added: "We could issue tickets outside every school if we had the staff to do it."
The council is hoping to privatise the jobs of 21 parking wardens in a bid to deal with the recruitment problem. The latest report shows that although one in seven parking contravention notices was either cancelled or written off, it still left 15,000 drivers each with a bill of between £30 and £60.
The council took over responsibility for parking from the police in November 2006. And it has now begun a huge review of parking spaces, fees and enforcement – expected to take a year to complete and cost £40,000. The review will look at the way charges are fixed, how they are enforced and whether parking fees should be the same in all towns.Charges for residents' permits, park-and-ride schemes, the availability of car parks and whether they should be privatised will all be discussed by the parking review working party.
Public consultation is expected to take place next year. The council's mid-term financial strategy indicates "an above-inflation incre-ase in parking income" to raise at least £200,000 extra in 2009/10.
It also expects to raise an additional £50,000 from parking fines but Mr Baines said there would be no increases before the outcome of the review. A number of wardens' jobs were left unfilled last year to try to make ends meet but the parking budget still ended the year £120,000 in the red.
1 comment:
So here's a Councillor (clearly a dullard) openly confirming the Council's policy of acting ultra vires and treating enforcement as a cash-raising exercise.
This is contrary to the judgement in R -v- The London Borough of Camden ex parte
Cran [1995] RTR 346 where Mr Justice McCullough confirmed that 'The Acts' as amended are not fiscal measures.
Although the 1991 Act decriminalises contraventions of parking restrictions, the primary statute - the Act under which the relevant traffic regulation or management orders are usually made - is The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”). The purpose and aims of the 1984 Act were considered by Mr Justice McCullough in R -v- The London Borough of Camden ex parte
Cran [1995] RTR 346. He said (at page 365D):”
“[It] is not a revenue raising Act.”
and (at page 360J-L):
“...[T]he 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure.... All its provisions...are concerned in one
way or another with the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the
provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. This is reflected in the wording of Section 122(1). There is its policy; there are its objects.”
- 6 -
In R -v- The Parking Adjudicator ex parte The London Borough of Bexley (CO/1616/96,
Unreported, 29 July 1997), this was approved by Mr Justice Scott Baker (Transcript, page 9GH).
Section 122(1) of the 1984 Act (as amended) reads:
“It shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by this
or under this Act so to exercise the functions...to secure the expeditious, convenient
and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the
provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway...”
The duty imposed by this sub-section is expressly subject to the provisions of Part II of the 1991 Act (Section 122(3) of the 1984 Act as amended).
If I recall correctly, further Ministerial direction with the enabling of The Traffic Management Act 2004 what this legislation is not for and that it must not be used for raising revenue.
Surely a compaint can stop this dullard's pursuance of unjust enrichment after he has been openly quoted?So here's a Councillor (clearly a dullard) openly confirming the Council's policy of acting ultra vires and treating enforcement as a cash-raising exercise.
This is contrary to the judgement in R -v- The London Borough of Camden ex parte
Cran [1995] RTR 346 where Mr Justice McCullough confirmed that 'The Acts' as amended are not fiscal measures.
Although the 1991 Act decriminalises contraventions of parking restrictions, the primary statute - the Act under which the relevant traffic regulation or management orders are usually made - is The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”). The purpose and aims of the 1984 Act were considered by Mr Justice McCullough in R -v- The London Borough of Camden ex parte
Cran [1995] RTR 346. He said (at page 365D):”
“[It] is not a revenue raising Act.”
and (at page 360J-L):
“...[T]he 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure.... All its provisions...are concerned in one
way or another with the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the
provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. This is reflected in the wording of Section 122(1). There is its policy; there are its objects.”
- 6 -
In R -v- The Parking Adjudicator ex parte The London Borough of Bexley (CO/1616/96,
Unreported, 29 July 1997), this was approved by Mr Justice Scott Baker (Transcript, page 9GH).
Section 122(1) of the 1984 Act (as amended) reads:
“It shall be the duty of every local authority upon whom functions are conferred by this
or under this Act so to exercise the functions...to secure the expeditious, convenient
and safe movement of vehicular and other traffic (including pedestrians) and the
provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway...”
The duty imposed by this sub-section is expressly subject to the provisions of Part II of the 1991 Act (Section 122(3) of the 1984 Act as amended).
If I recall correctly, further Ministerial direction with the enabling of The Traffic Management Act 2004 what this legislation is not for and that it must not be used for raising revenue.
Surely a complaint can stop this dullard's pursuance of unjust enrichment after he has been openly quoted?
Post a Comment